REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. MANJUNATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present respondent No.1, as a claimant had instituted a claim petition under 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the M.V. Act") in M.V.C.No.69/2014, before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chinthamani, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Tribunal"), against the present respondents No.2 to 4 and the present appellant, arraigning them as respondents, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000.00 with interest thereupon for the grievous injuries sustained by him on account of the road traffic accident.

(2.) The summary of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal was that, he, as a driver of Lorry bearing registration No.AP-09/TA-1658 along with Lorry cleaner Sri. Harinath Reddy was proceeding from RCL Priya Cement Factory to Bangalore. On the way near Loluru Cross of Singamala Mandalam, Ananthapura District, Andhra Pradesh on the date 7/5/2011, at about 4:30 a.m., a vehicle was coming from opposite side by putting its head lights on. Due to the headlight of the said opposite side vehicle, he (the claimant) could not notice a parked Lorry bearing registration No.AP-21/V-8758 on the centre of the road, without any signal or parking lights. It was the case of the claimant that the said accident has occurred only due to the negligent parking of the Lorry bearing registration No.AP-21/V-8758. Due to the said accident, he (the claimant) sustained grievous injuries.

(3.) In response to the summons served upon them, the respondents No.1, 3 and 4 before the Tribunal appeared through their respective counsel, however, it is only respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 who have filed their separate objections. The respondent No.1 denied all the contentions taken up by the claimant in his clam petition. It contended that the claim amount was exorbitant and exaggerated. However, it admitted that it had issued a policy in favour of respondent No.2 pertaining to vehicle bearing No.AP-21/V-8758. The respondent No.4 (appellant herein) in its Statement of Objections admitted that it is the insurer of the motor vehicle Lorry bearing registration No.AP-09/TA1658 and the policy was in force as on the date of the alleged accident. However, it contended that the driver of the said Lorry did not possess a valid Driving Licence at the time of the occurrence of the road traffic accident. It specifically contended that the insured has breached the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, as such, it is not liable to indemnify the third respondent. It also contended that had the claimant taken little care and caution, he could have avoided the accident. Further, stating that the quantum of compensation claimed is higher, excessive and exorbitant, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition as against it.